In the circumstances, lord chancellor and justice secretary Ken Clarke made a brave attempt to defend the government's plan to prevent any MI5 or MI6 intelligence from being disclosed in court, ever. He almost sounded like a defender of civil liberties when asked about the proposal on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

It was about "how to make the intelligence services more accountable", he said. "You can't have intelligence officers in open court [saying] this is the technology [we use]."

No one wants an MI6 officer to reveal his name, sources, or the latest spying equipment at his disposal. What is needed is the disclosure of wrongdoing by the security and intelligence agencies. The green paper given the Orwellian title of "Justice and Security" is the direct result of the exposure in the courts of MI5 and MI6 knowledge of, and in some cases connivance in, abuse and torture by foreign intelligence agencies, including the CIA.

If the government gets its way, any evidence of such wrongdoing in future would never see the light of day. Clarke says the plan would make the spooks more accountable in future because information now not used at all in court proceedings would be made available – behind closed doors in secret courts. But how would that make MI5 or MI6 more accountable? Evidence and confirmation of allegations of wrongdoing and the abuse of UK residents and citizens in Guantánamo Bay and secret prisons elsewhere emerged only because high court and appeal court judges allowed its disclosure. If the government gets its way they would not be able to.

And astonishingly, the outside body that is supposed to monitor the activities of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ – the parliamentary intelligence and security committee – says the government's green paper does not go far enough in insuring intelligence-related information is kept secret. It says it should be covered by an absolute blanket ban.

Clarke says a judge would have the last say. That's not what the green paper says. We cannot trust the government to volunteer wrongdoing by the security and intelligence agencies as the ugly saga of Britain's collusion in rendering individuals to places where they were brutally treated, and sometimes tortured, has revealed. So can we trust ministers and the spooks in future to allow the judges to disclose such evidence of wrongdoing? That is the question.

We should be reminded of some of the dangers Wednesday's report by parliament's joint human rights committee points to. It says:

• The government's claim for secrecy is far too broad – courts should withhold information only when genuine legitimate national security issues at stake.

• "The government has fallen back on vague predictions about the likelihood of more cases being brought in future in which intelligence material will be relevant, and spurious assertions about the catastrophic consequences of information being wrongly disclosed."

• "The government has not produced any evidence to substantiate its claims in the green paper that in some cases coroners have concluded that the exclusion of material has left them unable to complete their investigation."

• "[An] absolute statutory exemption from disclosure for material of a certain class can never be proportionate."

• "We are concerned … about the potential impact of the proposals on public trust and confidence not only in the government but in the courts." The committee refers to a ruling by supreme court judge Lord Kerr when he stated: "The public interest in maintaining confidence in the administration of justice … is an extremely important consideration and one which ought not to be overlooked."

• "It is regrettable that the green paper overlooks the very considerable impact of its proposals on the freedom and ability of the media to report on matters of public interest and concern. This is a serious omission. The role of the media in holding the government to account and upholding the rule of law is a vital aspect of the principle of open justice, as has been amply demonstrated in the decade since 9/11. We are also concerned about the impact of the proposals on public trust and confidence in the courts."

• The committee refers to a comment by the former director of public prosecutions, Lord Macdonald: "I don't think we should allow foreign intelligence agencies to dictate how we organise our justice system."

Nick Clegg has raised objections about the proposals. Clarke has tried to pacify critics. But fundamental questions remain unanswered. The proposals are unnecessary. The spooks want them, but would need them only to hide what should be exposed, not to protect genuine threats to national security. There are plenty of ways the courts can do this already.